NASA/NOAA Have Little Or No Long-Term Temperature Data For The UK

This is a list of all of the NASA/GHCN stations within 255 km of Waddington, England, that have raw temperature data. They have only two stations with recent data, and none with continuous temperature records going back to the 1930’s.

Africa is even worse, where they have very few stations with any kind of raw temperature data.

The global temperature record is a complete farce, put together by political criminals – not scientists. The fact that “four independent government agencies” now have essentially the same temperature graph, shows what a complete fraud these people are.

34 Responses to NASA/NOAA Have Little Or No Long-Term Temperature Data For The UK

Hell, I can’t really blame them for their lack of coverage in some places in Africa. It would take a battalion with all kinds of support to maintain sites in some of those countries. But there are still plenty of countries stable enough in where they could put stations that don’t even have a single one. But of course we can blame them for their trying to claim that their surface temperature data is a true indication of global surface temps and their dishonest selection of stations to make the “data” support what their bosses desire it to.

This wouldn’t be a problem at all if decolonization had never happened. The civilization brought to Africa naturally included meteorological equipment and monitoring, but when we were forced to leave (and genocided if we didn’t) we took the INTEREST in monitoring the weather with us.

A modern Africa still colonized would have had unbroken temperature data from at least 1900 to now.

I read one story about a year ago about a private company using airplane takeoffs around the world to build a temperature database. That would cover the globe without armies or new equipment. But i can’t find any hint of it since.Mann probably had him whacked.Anyone on here have a link or information?

Warrington is an odd station to include. It was a US airbase that existed before the dates used but is now an industrial estate so there is no modern site to assess, let alone modern measurements to be taken and compared. It has quite different weather to places north, south and east of it.

Fraud is the correct word. We all saw how the UK government fixed the Climategate ‘inquiries’. (Nothing to see here, move along.) They didn’t even interview Phil Jones, the head of Cru at East Anglia uni’, despite his emails being at the centre of the allegations! It’s clear why: if they had they’d have had no choice but to ditch the historical dataset which in turn would’ve left the entire AGW industry with no data upon which their fraud, er sorry, ‘settled science’ theory, could be justified. Outcome: end of the entire £multi-billion AGW industry, and they weren’t having that.

When I started going on about the pause, I knew that given a random set of meteorological stations, you could cherry pick stations to create a warming trend by constantly removing those that didn’t suit the kind of graph you wished to create.

However, as time went by, and the number of stations still left in your cherry picked set grew smaller and smaller (and more and more like each other as they all had to show the same warming) … sooner or later it would become impossible to keep the fiction of an ever warming signal going by cherry picking the stations you used.

… and here comes the fun bit!!!

The more you made having no warming a huge issue – the more they would cherry pick the stations to weed out the ones without massive warming – and the sooner they would create a very homogenised dataset with very little variation from which they could remove any of the cooling ones to fabricate warming.

If my logic is difficult to follow … think of it this way. You want to prove that everyone in a town is walking south. There are 10,000 people, and at your first measurement – you ignore from your sample everyone walking North. Assume this leaves 5000. At each successive sample, you discard as “obviously bogus data” any not going south. If this is half of each sample, then after 8 measurements you only have 40 people.

However …. because all these people have been sharing precisely the same behaviour, it is very likely that many of them are in groups or even one large group. So although you might expect to be able to pick 20, 10, 5,2,1 the chances are that whole groups are related in some way, so that they will drop out much faster than expected.

A similar argument can be used when picking from a large number of possible ways to “process the data”. By pure chance many will be able to manufacture warming … but those that do distort the data in the same way will tend to be related in some way. So eventually, whilst you still have a large number of possible ways to process the data … you’ll find they all tend to come to the same result (which by pure chance will sooner or later be cooling).

§9 A scientific statement is based on verifiable data. Data and precise information about how that data was obtained are readily available for independent verification. Whenever data are corrected or disregarded, both uncorrected and corrected data are provided together with a scientific argument for the correction.

Since NOAA refuses to explain the why of the ‘corrections’ and those corrections continually change, we are looking at propaganda not science.

Heck from what I can gather the changes are made by some idiot computer program and not even a person who looks at the datum and the facts surrounding the gathering of that datum and makes an intelligent and scientific decision on the error and precision! (Per Zeke Hausfeathers)

WMO ” Because the data with respect to in-situ surfaceair temperature across Africa is sparse, a oneyearregional assessment for Africa could notbe based on any of the three standard globalsurface air temperature data sets from NOAANCDC,NASA-GISS or HadCRUT4. Instead, thecombination of the Global Historical ClimatologyNetwork and the Climate Anomaly MonitoringSystem (CAMS GHCN) by NOAA’s Earth SystemResearch Laboratory was used to estimatesurface air temperature patterns”

“In order to assess the state of the climatein any region, regular distributed and longtermobservations are needed within thatregion. Unfortunately, WMO RegionalBaseline Climatological Network (RBCN)stations and GCOS Global Surface Network(GSN) stations across the African continentoften lack resources to report on monthlyor on annual (see Figure 4) time scales”

The WMO flag up that Africa needs 9000 temps stations, this gives the scale of the problem- Africa is bigger than the land masses of the US, China, India, Mexico, Peru, France, Spain, Papua New Guinea, Sweden, Japan, Germany, Norway, Italy, New Zealand, the UK, Nepal, Bangladesh and Greece put together.

There is so little coverage in the Southern Hemisphere that it is farcical to try and reconstruct either a Southern Hemisphere or a Global data set.

We only have reasonable coverage with respect to the Northern Hemisphere. If this was a genuine science, the short comings of the SH and the Global data sets would be readily acknowledged. We should only be working with the Northern hemisphere data.

Since science is essentially all about numbers, the first step would be to get quality data, not to use hopelessly inadequate data and then seek to adjust it/homogenize it in the hope of getting something better. you cannot make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.

The starting point would be to audit all stations (like the surface station projections0 and then select only the most pristine stations, ie., those that have no issue with screens, station moves, no encroachment of urbanisation or changes in nearby land use, those with the best practice and procedure for observation and record keeping/quality control, those where the use and type of equipment is known at all times, and stations that have a continuous uninterupted record etc.

One would only work with the cream. It does not matter that one may be left with just a few hundred stations. This might lead to spatial issues, but that is not much of a problem where the theory being tested is based upon CO2 being a well mixed gas. More important is that one has a reasonable number of stations covering a range of latitudes, some coastal,, some mountainous, and the majority simply rural.

One does not need to compile a Hemisphere wide data set. One can simply examine each station and keep each individual station separate. One could retrofit each of the selected stations with the same equipment as used in the 1930s/1940s and take observations using the same TOB as was used at that station in the 1930s/1940s.

In this manner there would be no need to make any adjustments at all. Just use raw data, and compare raw data with raw data.

If we were to retrofit say 100 or so good stations with the equipment that those stations used in the 1930s/1940s, one would quickly know what changes had really taken place since then.

Further, I do not see how one can compile a time series when each year the stations that make up that series change. To compile a meaningful time series, it is necessary to keep the stations used exactly the same throughout the entirety of the time.

The coming and going of stations is one the biggest problems in the land based thermometer data sets, and it invalidates the law of big numbers. The errors are immense because of the adding in and dropping out of stations and the general compositional change in the mix of stations (the ratio of urban, airport, rural, high latitude etc.)

Unfortunately B€ST was a lost opportunity. It should have gone right the way back to the drawing board.

First of all, the snooty bureaucrats would never agree to use antiquated equipment from 80 years ago, even though I’m sure it would be quite accurate. Better for them to “modernize” ( keep changing everything) and then adjust the data to suit their nefarious purposes.

It would be great to see a comparison from the exact stations used to construct the thirties forties Heat and the Ice Age scare which reflected globally and mainly in the northern hemisphere and then to see what stations they use now to construct a completely different graphic and or how they adjusted those stations and why. They should be forced to explaine their adjustments and station changes.

The synoptic network meets the requirements of forecasting, nowcasting, NWP and international exchange for real time observations taken at intervals between 1 and 3 hours. The observed elements include weather, cloud, temperature, humidity, wind, visibility, pressure etc. contained in the SYNOP message (see 4.1). Most synoptic stations also report hourly rain in the SREW message (see 4.2) as well as observations which meet more general climate requirements in the HCM and NCM messages (see 4.4 and 4.5). The current synoptic network has an average station spacing of less than 50 km; it is made up of the following sub-networks:”

So,seems that 75-80% of african territory has no stations at allbut they are cocksure that they can prove global warmingand on the other side satellites are covering the entire planet and shoving no warming for 2 decades but they don’t care.

This never was about climate and never will.

These people have no ethics,no logic no pride but shameless freeloaders with huge pockets for co2 tax moneys and a bag of lies you get in return.

Just an additional note. If you were to take the Tanzanian measurements and find the difference in temperatures, separated by as many years as possible, then this could be compared to the difference in GISS anomalies for the same years. If they don’t agree, it is likely something is wrong with GISS, since there are nine stations to none in the comparison.

If my fading memory is correct, I seem to recall at about the time of climategate1, the UK met office telling us that they could not divulge lots of weather data because it was “copyrighted” Then I seem to recall they were intending to use some of the taxpayer’s millions to compile a brand new fit for purpose world temperature chart, or some such.What became of that project I wonder?Slightly off topic, but related, I see the Pontifical “science” department after consulting that seer population bomb Paul Elrich and his pals, tell us that global warming is the biggest threat to a “sustainable” future world of 1 billion people. And there was I as a Catholic believing every human being was important. So who on here will volunteer to be culled?

Patrick,If you go from the point of view that the elite have nothing but contempt for the Great Unwashed and ‘down-sizing’/culling the herd is a typical farmer’s method it all makes sense.

#1 How many people do the elite need to keep them in comfort? Or as Ted Turner, founder of CNN and the UN Foundation bluntly put it during an interview with Audubon magazine. “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Source: The book You Don’t Say, by Fred Gielow, 1999, page 189.

#2. How dangerous to the elite is the USA, EU and other western ‘democratic nations’ with their ideas of equality and self-governance? Nations with an upwardly mobile middle class of upstarts like Donald Trump challenging their positions?

#3. How easy would it be to genetically engineer a docile but intelligent subservient class… OR have the Red Chinese already succeeded in doing so?

UK: DNA test for every baby (This is true in the USA too.)(wwwDOT)dailymail.co.uk/health/article-186118/DNA-test-baby.html

Straight from Fabian co-founder George Bernard Shaw

KILLING THOSE “UNFIT TO LIVE”“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

“Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

Yesterday I talked to a woman whose uncle lived in a Communist country, Czechoslovakia. She said they were housed, clothed, fed, had medial care but no freedom of choice, no luxuries. Her uncle was ‘high-up’ and had two whole rooms for his family. Children were aptitude tested and that was the slot you got shoved into. For example her cousin wanted to be a teacher but she had an aptitude as a florist so that was the slot she was put in to.